Is libertarianism about liberty or tyranny?

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by Balbus, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672


    Libertarians claim to wish to liberate us from the ‘tyranny’ of government but it seems to me that the policies they advocate

    Very few or no taxes or regulations on banks or the wealthy, little or no state welfare, education or training systems, and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws

    In my opinion this rather than lead us from tyranny would in fact lead to the domination of the wealthy.

    What is your opinion.


     
  2. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    114
    Here's former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne's response to some of these.



    War on Poverty & rent control cause poverty & homelessness

    Browne does not support tax incentives for companies to hire and train homeless people; nor increasing spending on low income housing projects; nor expanding the earned-income tax credit for low income families. Browne says, “Federal urban renewal programs, the War on Poverty, welfare, rent control, and housing regulations are the primary causes of enduring poverty and homelessness.”

    Source: Project Vote Smart, 1996, www.vote-smart.org May 1, 1996

    Supports enterprise zones; eliminate govt regulations

    Browne would eliminate government regulations to encourage investment and...


    http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/browne_7-05.html
     
  3. seamonster66

    seamonster66 discount dracula

    Messages:
    22,565
    Likes Received:
    14
    Many of these people give me the creeps...I don't think a government should be as lassez faire as many of these types would like it to be.

    They seem to be too sink or swim for me, bad things happen to good people, and the government needs to step in during certain situations.
     
    snowtiggernd likes this.
  4. Pikachu

    Pikachu Member

    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm a Registered Libertarian, but I don't believe in all-out Libertarian philosphy.
    Just like Anarchy, it would never work.

    I'm a Libertarian because I believe in the Social agenda of the Left-Wing and the Fiscal and Foreign Policy agenda of the Right.

    I also strongly believe that there is far too much red tape, pork, and over-regulation in Washington, and that the tax system is a complete mess that needs to be fixed, preferably by eliminating the income tax, and replacing it with a National Sales Tax.
    Taxing consumption, and not income, will encourage saving & investing, while also taxing foriegn tourists and those who earn money either illegally or "under the table" without a W-2.

    So yeah, that's why i'm a Libertarian, but I don't vote Libertarian. I vote for Democrats & Republicans pretty much equally, depending on where they stand on certain issues. Partisan politics is a very bad thing.

    This year I voted for Kerry, simply because there was a Republican majority in the House & Senate. If it has been a Democrat majority, I would have voted for Bush. Political gridlock is a very good thing.
     
  5. Maes

    Maes Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Governments are the boardrooms of companies"

    Karl Marx
     
  6. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    As if the wealthy wouldn't dominate in a socialist society, where everyone's money is turned over to a powerful and wealthy few, who in turn decide what is best for everyone else? Give me a break. The Germans of the 1930's naively bought into the same exact concept and look what they got; a fascistic dictatorship.

    The problem with capitalism today is that there is TOO MUCH government involvement and regulation. The corrupt government is promoting capitalistic corruption because BIG-government and BIG-business are in bed together and they both profit from from this capitalistic cronyism. When you have a minimalist government, you have less intermingling of government and business, thus less corporate cronyism.

    The US is not a truly capitalist nation. It's is a crony capitalist nation, and libertarians, including myself, are against this as much as we are socialism.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    114
    Are there differences among Libertarians,such as those who are conservative,liberal and moderate?
     
  8. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Conservative-libertarians tend to favor a pro-business economic policy, and sometimes embrace isolationism. Meanwhile, they're more moderate on social issues like the war on drugs, abortion, and civil rights issues.

    Liberal-libertarians, such as myself, tend to favor expanding the existing civil rights laws, protecting the right to privacy, and encouraging a globalist economic policy (but NOT a global government). They tend to oppose unjustified war, but are more moderate on budgetary issues.

    Moderate-libertarians, obviously, are somewhere in between.

    Libertarians come in many different forms, contrary to what the Libertarian Party might have you believe. You don't have to be against every single aspect of government to be ideologically libertarian.
     
  9. HuckFinn

    HuckFinn Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1
    So by this reasoning, we should just scrap all pesky labor, consumer, and environmental regulations? Then corporations wouldn't need to buy influence in government because they'd already have their way? Call me dense, but this doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me.
     
  10. interval_illusion

    interval_illusion Deceased

    Messages:
    22,236
    Likes Received:
    5
    ive felt like that for a while. once apon a time i was a registered lib.- i changed to independent... um, i agree with them on social issues ONLY. the rest actually scares me.
     
  11. interval_illusion

    interval_illusion Deceased

    Messages:
    22,236
    Likes Received:
    5
    i guess id be a liberal lib. then though i wont call myself that.
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    **


    Rat

    Yours is not a reply to the criticisms levelled at libertarianism it is attacks on others, first socialism and then what you see as the present position.

    So are you saying that you agree with my view of the general thrust of libertarian policies?

    Very few or no taxes or regulations on banks or the wealthy, little or no state welfare, education or training systems, and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws

    And my viewpoint that such policies would lead to the domination of the wealthy?

    If not why not?
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Motion

    Browne says, “Federal urban renewal programs, the War on Poverty, welfare, rent control, and housing regulations are the primary causes of enduring poverty and homelessness.”

    That is rhetoric, it is an assertion, it says and means little. Those kinds of statements are only a beginning thy are not answers so the next question to ask would be why?

    The thing is you are not going to get much discussion or analysis of such things in television debates or statements coming directly from the Libertarian Party, they are just the start of a such things not the end of them.

    So why does Browne think that welfare is the main reason for poverty continuing?


     
  14. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    114
    According to Harry Browne, welfare contributed to poverty because the more the governmemnt gave to the poor(starting with the war on poverty in the mid-60's) the less reasons many poor people had,or saw to move themselves out of poverty by changing some of the things that were contributing to them being poor. This increase in spending on welfare help to make welfare more permanant for many poor instead of temporary. I've heard it said that food stamps made to many poor people "comfortable" in their poverty.

    Also Browne and others have pointed out that welfare went against two parent households, because if there was a man in the house benefits would be cut. This they say contributed to single parent households among the poor.
     
  15. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Is the idea that if someone had a choice between being homeless and starving or working they would work?

    That welfare means that a person will have shelter and will not starve therefore they will not work?

    So why does the removal of welfare mean such people would not live in poverty?

    Do you believe that only the fear of starvation and homelessness will make people work and that they are the only things people want out of life?

    If yes and welfare means people don’t starve and have shelter why aren’t there a lot more people claiming welfare?

    **

    Also Browne and others have pointed out that welfare went against two parent households, because if there was a man in the house benefits would be cut. This they say contributed to single parent households among the poor.

    So if the father can’t be found or is not earning enough to support the mother and child, the mother and child should starve? Should the child be forcefully taken from the mother in such circumstance?
     
  16. Motion

    Motion Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,255
    Likes Received:
    114
    It's that they feel that the welfare system that was put in place during the "war on poverty" of Johnson was geared towards welfare being more long term,than short term.

    I also heard that people on welfare were penalized for saving money under the pre-reform welfare system. This would discourage people from doing something that would move them up. You need to be able to save money as part of an anti-poverty plan.

    That's a different situation.

    The criticizm of pre-reform welfare was that it simply penalized a family just for having a man in the household. This they felt interfered with the incentive to create and maintain two parent households among the poor. It makes no sense to penalize two parent households.
     
  17. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    I am a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that I -- or any other libertarian-minded person for that matter -- believe that people who are in need should go without.

    I believe in helping people. I have volunteered at homeless shelters and soup kitchens many times over the years. I am not a cold-hearted cheapskate.

    I simply don't believe that the government helps people. I believe the government hinders people and ultimately makes them dependent on the system, which basically enslaves them and makes them believe that their impoverished existence can be nothing more than what it is. This only works to bring society down even more, as you have more and more people dependent on the system (hence impoverished and unhappy) for longer and longer periods of time.

    The welfare state is of much more benefit to the government and the elected officials than it is to the people. For one, it gets politicians elected, especially those who are advocates of these social programs. Most of these people care more about being elected or re-elected than they do helping people, so they endlessly pander to certain minority groups and special interests, who naively believe these beaurocrats want what is best for them. Even many of the politicians themselves have bought into the lie that the welfare state is of benefit to the people.

    These programs only keep people down and dependent; they don't truly help them.

    Helping people doesn't involve paying their way through life at the taxpayers' expense. It's not like most of the money you pay in taxes, that is supposed to go towards helping people, actually does. Most of it goes to a bunch of often corrupt beaurocrats, who then determine how it should all be spent and allocated.

    I believe there should be a safety net in society to prevent people from falling through the cracks. I simply don't believe in the massive welfare state that has been created, and I certainly don't believe in the super-welfare state that socialism would like to impose on everybody.

    Most people are gullible and think all this money goes to helping people, when most of it goes to other things that the taxpayers are completely unaware of. This only gives the government more unneeded power, and ultimately gives them more control over people's lives.

    Perhaps if there was a drastic change in society and people weren't fleeced by every tax that is forced upon them, they would be more willing to donate to charitable causes as a substitute to government intervention. However, I do understand this is overly idealistic and unlikely.

    My main point is that there is a difference between a welfare state, where you have large portions of the population completely dependent on the system, and a functioning system that sees to it that people do not fall through the cracks, while instilling a sense of hope that things can be better than what they are through economic stablity and social equality.

    Harry Browne was right; welfare adds to poverty.

    People who think welfare is the answer to everything are missing out on the much bigger things that need changing in this world, that force people into poverty to begin with.
     
  18. green_thumb

    green_thumb kill your T.V.

    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Give me liberty or give me death!

    It's sad how easily people are convinced to hand over their rights....fools.
     
  19. TrippinBTM

    TrippinBTM Ramblin' Man

    Messages:
    6,514
    Likes Received:
    3
    What if one sees no great distinction between the two and thinks both are equally dangerous?
     
  20. it's borderline anarchy
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice